Update update

Page 3 of 4  
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:16:01 -0700, Don Y

remember.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:16:01 -0700, Don Y

IBM used something called TQ DOS that was a multitasking application that ran under the standard DOS OS along with the 3270 emulator.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 07:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: ? Coherent UNIX? OpusV? Inferno? Jaluna? Amoeba? Mach-US?

I do have a Kaypro that works the last time I had it on, so did get to fool with CP/M a bit.
Incredibly more advanced than DOS

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 07:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:
[snip]

What I used in college was called Isis-II and was similar to CP/M.
BTW, I still have the 8-inch flippy disk. I'll probably never know if it's still good.
[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/14/2016 11:27 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

ISIS-II was used on the MDS-800 development system. One of my first products was developed on one. The floppies sounded like someone grinding the gears on a manual tranny... The prom programmer was the size of a breadbox.
[I still have the sources for the ISIS tools -- but, on paper]

I have a box of NOS media. Plus, a pristine 8" floppy drive complete with electronic doorlock. The 512KB system that I used the drive on allowed me to use the large RAM as a disk cache. I would lock the drive door whenever there was live data in the cache waiting to be written back to the floppy. When I wanted to eject the floppy, I'd flush the cache and the door would unlock when the writes were finished.
[Pretty slick for 1980 "home" technology -- classier than the PC's that were just being introduced (and faster, too!)]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

ISIS is similar to CP/M because both were written by Gary Kildall. Kildall worked on ISIS for Intel, which was used for Intel development system, later he created CP/M as a commercial product that his company Digital Research sold. Gary couldn't reach an agreememt with IBM when they came a calling for an OS for their first PC. Bill Gates copied CP/M, or enough of it for MS DOS, so that the two were very similar, reached a deal with IBMS and Gary always felt that Gates had unfairly copied from him and cheated him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/14/2016 03:34 PM, Don Y wrote:

Yes.

Yes. I remember using it for my class project (traffic light controller, and unlike a lot of the others I didn't leave out the caution after the left-turn arrow).
[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/15/2016 11:35 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

Microprocessors didn't make it into my curriculum when I was in school -- despite the fact that I was developing with them "in industry" at the same time (i4004, i8080, MC6800). Instead, the attitude was "why don't you take one of the VAXEN and use that, instead...?"
While this seemed insane, at the time, it is amusing to realize how forward-thinking the approach was: nowadays, a VAX-equivalent environment is less than a cup of coffee! Why not use them EVERYWHERE?!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How to get WinXp updates from MSFT till 2019, seems to work.... it's pretty simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPo3eF0RsvA

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/13/2016 9:17 AM, My 2 Cents wrote:

I wouldn't trust that. XPe is not the same product as XP. And, by installing the registry hack, you are *claiming* that you are running XPe. If the update process takes your word for it, it will blindly install updates that WILL work on XPe but that might NOT work on XP! In the process, wedging your system (how do you "back out" the offending update? Call MS and complain -- and beg for help??)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 11:30 AM, Don Y wrote:

I still have a few...not in use XP machines , so I might be willing to try the experiment.
Windows XP embedded is really all the same components as a standard XP install, it's simply that corporations using it can customize to leave out un-needed components
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/13/2016 10:10 AM, philo wrote:

In an embedded environment, the resources available are often of significantly different character.
E.g., you may not have "secondary storage" (disk). Or, you may have it just to *load* executables -- swapping to it may not be possible (read/only) or *durable* (flash with limited write cycles).
How you approach a problem (in software) depends in large part on the resources that you expect to have available.
If, for example, you can read some large object into memory (e.g., the registry) and crosslink individual records (to expedite future accesses to that data), you can choose to: - leave it there knowing it will get swapped out to disk as needs for memory increase - explicitly write it *once* to "disk" (flash) with the expectation that you won't be updating it (much) and can just re-read the portions that you need AS you need them - never load it in the first place and, instead, read it off the immutable medium and go through the efforts of extracting the data more slowly
XPe boxes tend to have fewer and limited applications -- you're unlikely to find AutoCAD running on an XPe box! Often, those applications can remain resident in memory (RAM) and not need to swap.
XPe boxes probably have fewer network interfaces (I can put 2 dozen network interfaces in my desktop machines; I have *four* in a little SBC machine... on the same PCI card!). This simplifies the routing tables and overall design of the network stack. They probably need fewer sockets as you're unlikely to have several "network applications" active simultaneously.
Etc.
It's like saying a motorcycle with sidecar is the same as a big Buick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 12:36 PM, Don Y wrote:
<snip>

Speaking of Buicks here one from 1957 which has been modified a bit
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5y9esf1ojds88h2/1957Buick.jpg?dl=0
Yes, modified by photoshop but I like it Someone posted it recently on FB thinking it was real
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/13/2016 10:55 AM, philo wrote:

You'll never know if it is "working reliably" -- only if it is NOT! :> And, you'll never know if one of the updates that get installed next Tuesday will break it.
It's like overclocking a CPU -- yeah, it *might* work (for a particular chip, temperature, power supply voltage, application, etc.)... or, not.
If you want a faster CPU, *buy* a faster CPU, etc.
Unless, of course, you don't REALLY want it (i.e., are willing to have a broken computer) but just want to "play".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 01:13 PM, Don Y wrote:

Just recalled that I have XP installed in a virtual machine.
All I need do is copy the .vdi, then experiment
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/13/2016 11:45 AM, philo wrote:

Again, all you will learn from this is if it DOESN'T work -- if you can catch it doing something "wrong". You'll never be able to say, definitively, "yes, this is the same as XP".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 01:56 PM, Don Y wrote:

Here is what I just did:
I have XP in a virtual machine but never updated it.
Went to update it now for the first time and the process went very fast.
There were two preliminary updates needed and once they were applied it found and started to fetch 131 more ASAP.
So my theory that MS was throttling updates for older systems is wrong...looks like they are singling out Win7 for some reason.
I wonder why ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 3:03:48 PM UTC-4, philo wrote:

I reported here my recent experience with Win 7. I restored a 4 year old PC back to it's original software, so I needed to do all the Win 7 updates. First it put in a new update agent. Then it did a bunch of updates that went fine. Then it put in a new update agent and after that it just sat there forever, checking for updates, not proceeding. I found lots of people in various forums online, having the same problem, ie that after it put that certain new update agent, everything stopped. I think some people reported that if left alone for 2 days, it may have eventually proceeded. People had contacted MSFT, no resolution. So, finally I thought to look and see if there was a newer update agent. I found there were several, downloaded one, installed it manually, and then updates proceeded normally again. So, there is definitely something wrong between that one particular update agent and the MSFT update servers. What else may be going on, IDK. But it occurred to me that MSFT isn't too interested in fixing any of that because it will help drive people to Win 10.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 02:59 PM, trader_4 wrote:

<snip>

Believe me, I tried newer update agents and everything I could think of to no avail. The best I could to is just leave the machine set to auto-update, then let it sit overnight.
That usually did the trick but could take 8 - 12 hours to complete.
I really think MS is doing that purposely to "encourage" a move to Win10.
Possibly they just leave XP alone as it cannot be directly upgraded?
BTW: Since I had XP in a virtual machine and the installation is of little value to me, I did try that previously mentioned registry hack and got something like 46 more updates. Nothing seemed to have been "screwed up" but I am not suggesting that others try it.
There are still browsers and virus checkers for XP...so it will probably be around for a while yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/13/2016 03:07 PM, philo wrote:
[snip]

New Firefox and Opera browsers still work on XP.
I now have XP only on a VM, although I don't see any problem with continuing to use it. As to the browser, I've used Firefox since v0.8 (the first version called Firefox).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.